The video is refering to a molecular mechanism system that acts as a compass though. I'd never actually heard of that, so I can't say anymore than
what was said in the video. I did post a link on the birds navigation system though.

Are you suggesting that it is not this, and it may be due to inherited memories?

Here's one article on it. This is the subject isn't it? Memory of some form would still be required I think. A compass is no good if you don't know
where you are supposed to be going.

Humans have a compass but it doesn't always point to north when you are facing it. If you spin slowly in a circle outside away from metal and sense
the direction you feel most comfortable in it seems always to point one way. I showed my son in law this, he always wound up facing east. Lifting
his left hand and pointing out and he was pointing north. My orientation was always to facing north, his was to the east, so knowing how to translate
it makes us on the same page From others I observed and talked to I have noticed they usually stop always facing one of the four directions NSEW.
I've known this for many years. We just need to learn to understand our differences and learn our potential. I'm guessing most people have this
built in compass but have only showed about twenty people this over the years. It could have even been explained to me sometime when I was really
young and may not be something I discovered myself.

There may also be some areas where a person's internal compass doesn't work right. Geomagnetics often effects a migrating animals built in compass.
If it effects the needle of the compass I assume it will effect our internal compass also. Water bodies close to us effect this as do metal objects
of all kind.

So you are saying dishonesty is a valuable contribution to a discussion and should be respected? Seriously? How is adding honest and credible source
material to a discussion like this less valuable or even equal to those engaging in dishonest discourse? Do explain how you reconcile that with amount
of time someone's been here.

You accused many of us (including myself) of being intellectually dishonest ergo we are included in that post. That post states you have contributed
more than said members. Hence my bringing up the length of time being members and the obvious logic that follows, the obvious absurdity that you a
very new member have contributed 'far more'.

So you are saying nobody here was engaging in dishonest discourse? Including your quote mining of my posts, or people depositing repetitive fallacy
arguments? Are you suggesting honest to goodness dishonesty makes a long time member to have contributed more to a discussion? Seriously? Your logic
seems utterly backwards.

That's the post. That's what I was responding to. Stop pretending you're not fully cognizant of what you're doing.

See this right here is a perfect example of a logical fallacy. I am completely cognizant of what I am doing..

Just because we use iron in compasses and we design compasses doesn't mean fish were somehow designed. Especially considering salmons CLEARLY
evolved, and we can prove it: LINK

Your whole argumentation is essentially like a kid seeing a car for the first time, and the car is blue...so the kid claims all cars are blue. THAT'S
NONSENSE and a prime example of the ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.

By the way, the video you posted, is that supposed to be comedy or for real? Because the entire conclusion of the video isn't based on facts

I get the falsifiable part. There is no way to prove it wrong by us, so we can't rely on it to draw an implication. This is precisely the
problem in science.

If that were true, you wouldn't have a computer to which involves a very intimate understanding of particle physics ect. Practical application of
science pretty much rips that argument apart.

Science is based on observing the changing states of matter.

Which is changing states of energy.. And these changes happen by the fact energy interferes with itself..Just look up QED quantum foam, Casimir
effect, How particles gain mass, how mass is the energy content of matter ect..

From this, they search the laws that govern the change. Nothing, apart from law, has EVER been observed twice.

These are the laws of existence itself, and they can only be laws of existence itself. It's a quantized existence to which is the only form of
existence that is possible. Maybe this can help break down the basic rules for everyone between information and energy:

there are 3 fundamental laws that govern cause and effect, information, and energy. These same 3 laws, principles, or attributes govern
consciousness, morals, ethics, laws, emotions, and feelings, or any Complex Adaptive system with feedback. So what are they? * POSITIVE* NEGATIVE* NEUTRAL

These are not only the base laws of existence, they are the attributes to everything, and everything we know of is made of energy. thus it's
considered under information theory that Energy =/= information as both substance and value (as previously noted above). Thus the 3
fundamental properties, attributes, and laws are the cause of all causation. Information and energy are thus simply stated as "Cause".

If I touch an apple, the thermodynamic of that apple is changed. It never reaches the same state twice.

And yet when you stop touching an apple it goes back to it's original state in regards to thermodynamics. You're making arguments from not
understanding the laws of thermodynamics. So unless you put a dent in the apple, its state will pretty much remain the same..

Information entropy is working on the bits of information that hold the matter in the apple together. Over time, it rots when the energy looses the
ability to hold the molecules together.

Information entropy yes, but the energy or information is not lost. And a lot of what deals with rotting apples is the chemical break down, or things
like bacteria, insects, and mold extra eat away at the apple. Even the slow atomic decay would do the job over time.

Matter is the archetype for what we observe in law. The laws themselves are only falsifiable because there is a reflection in matter that allows us
to see. The Bible is the lens that allows our astigmatism to be cleared when viewing law. The Bible is an outline of law. We understand that law
because it is locked in parable and symbol, reflected by the very history we live. All of this is our reflecting point to see law with more than our
mind and intellect.

Sorry the laws can not be written when such things as cognitive systems require the exact same laws to function, exist, or to even produce a flea
level of cognition within functional cognitive dynamics.. And the bible doesn't discuss any such topics regarding energy and information, entropy,
particle physics ect. Your making a fallacy argument about a polytheistic creation story some how being made with an understanding of systems theory,
particle physics, cosmology ect when they hadn't a clue. You're basically trying to conform biblical era to the 21st century as if these people had
any education what-so-ever on these scientific fields.. This to which is very dishonest. Sorry, you can't just apply a 21st century lens of thought
over the biblical era as if they were the same. It's not even close. Their parables were more about not knowing, and their wonder of the heavens
above were of pure ignorance of them.They didn't know what high mass stars were, how fusion works, how the heavier elements are made, what the big
bang was ect. Also There is no other base governor than existence itself, and those laws can not be created, they can only be and followed or
applied.

Example:

Not entity what so ever can post on this forum without abiding by those laws and premises of the physical system. And no entity could even be a
conscious entity without requiring those same laws.. I even wrote an article on the evolution of morality here:

Then we have squiz routinely depositing dishonest source material like that video regarding Dawkins.. It's a video that is entirely an argument from
ignorance and an appeal to ignorance. One should watch "why do creationists get laughed at" and you can literally see every fallacy argument made in
his video on Dawkins. Worst yet, his video claims multicellular life is impossible for form on it's own, or that the Cabrian explosion was some how a
sudden event to which it was not as it took millions of years.. His argument also resides on the ignorance that soft body to soft-shell organisms do
not preserve well in the fossil record. Hence the reason for the seemingly blank record. We've seen a rare few of these fossils and it the mass
majority of the record due to the nature of such transitions is lost.. It's sad we have to repetitively debunk pseudoscience here while the poster
knows it's pseudoscience garbage. :/ And of course more GOD of the Gaps arguments that may as well point to the spaghetti monster and his gang of
pixie fairy friend whipping their midget slave elves to create the world around you.

I was going to argue on the side of logic and reason, but whats the point? These christians are so brainwashed they are actually quoting the bible as
if its any kind of valid proof. Why are you quoting something written 4000 years ago by some arab with a education equivalent to kindergarten as if
its intelligent? Stop embarrassing yourself LOL

The only hope for them is to actually go out and get an education. Religion is only for the weak minded...

PS: Santas comming in a few months!

I have explained the current theories in quantum mechanics. I have show that light is not seen for what it is by pointing out the video from
Leonard Susskind on energy being information. The comparison in John 1 defines what our reality is. Apart form digital
information encoded in DNA, we would not be here. God called it Word.

I have clearly shown this in relation to the appropriate verses in the Bible. This gives me two witnesses. Science gives me the hard data and words
from "ignorant Arabs" as you call them reveals the very same information by comparison. By the way, Arab is a proper name, so it needs to be
capitalized. The same with the word Christians. It's hard to take you seriously on the topic of education if you don't show us proper usage with
your own words.

I have given pages of good context and the best you can do is insult my education. Provide a better answer if you can. Insulting someone is not a
good answer. It only reveals the fact you have nothing more relevant to say.

The Bible should have died long ago if false. The fact that it will not die is testimony to the fact that our observation of the world is mirrored
perfectly with it's pages of truth. It's a mirror of our future, past and present.

Then the Torah is even more valid than the bible?

edit on 2-8-2012 by nunyadammm because: (no reason given)

When Paul speaks of rightly dividing truth, he is referring to Hillel's Seven Rules. The truth that scripture is divided from is the Torah. What
follows the Torah can be shown to contain the same heptadic structure as the rest.

Ah, yep ATP was one of the speculated pathways, there are significant differences though. The fact that it's ten times smaller and far less parts.
It's much like convering a lawn mower engine into a car engine. And yes I absolutey agree it's a remarkable nano machine.

In fact it is just another example of the same problem. An extremely good one.

Do you get that I'm actually supporting yor argument?

Why are you asking when did this evolve again? Yep you've definately got your wires
crossed.

There's been a few papers released on the ATP only just recently. It's pretty much all machine language in description. A new era of biology.

Want to silence an evolutionist, ask him to tell you which lineage of man on earth is the inferior. If evolution were truth we would not al evolve at
the same rate. If you want to stump a physicist ask him how you create something from nothing and what came before nothing.

I told you a while back that this particular brand of half-a***d creationism based entirely on your own warped interpretation of the bible will not
hold much water here.

And the best you have to offer?

Salmon swimming upstream..................

My book is on classroom management and a calm and assertive approach to preserving the dignity of students with communication. I doubt it has an
application here beyond assisting with communication above the level of a middle school student. You present an attack on my position and then fail
to provide any context of your own. To equate my argument with a 'political good' holds no water unless you can fill in the holes with something of
value. Until you do, I have shown you the high road. Go back and read my posts in this thread. Come back and tell me, point by point, how your own
context is higher. It must be easy to do since you see my arguments as insufficient.

Start with this video where Leonard Susskind shows energy to be information in a holographic universe. Then, compare these comments to God saying
that WORD designed and built the universe (John 1) from what is hidden (Quantum). Follow up by showing the difference between an image of energy,
moving in time and space in the form of matter. Genesis 1:1-3 and Genesis 1:27 is what I rest on as a comparison to what science observes. Unless
you can refute four simple passages from the Bible, then God has the upper ground here. The creator of what science observes continues to be beyond
our reasoning of what is observed. Unless you have a better implication to share, then four little verses stand solid on the truth they offer.

Originally posted by MissingRonnieR
Want to silence an evolutionist, ask him to tell you which lineage of man on earth is the inferior. If evolution were truth we would not al evolve at
the same rate. If you want to stump a physicist ask him how you create something from nothing and what came before nothing.

Inferior how? And yeah, we don't all evolve at the same rate, nothing does...mostly because our average birth rates and life spans are different, as
is the rate of change in the environment. There's a good reason why the rate of change isn't the same

And nobody's saying it came from "nothing". We don't know how it all started, big difference. Not knowing isn't the same as saying it came from
nothing. So no, you won't really "stump a physicist" by asking him that question

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.